What does it mean that Christ “was in the form of God”?

Explanation:

Paul says that Christ was in the form of God. To understand what he means, we need to consider the context. He calls on the Philippians to look to each other’s interests (Philippians 2:4), and then explains that Christ had this same mindset (Philippians 2:5). That is, although Christ was in the form of God, he emptied himself and took the form of a servant. Thus, the Philippians should be like Christ who had the highest position and status possible, but who did not grasp that position. Rather, he considered others’ needs as more important than his own. Thus, Paul uses Christ as the example of what it means for the Philippians to put aside their own position, needs, and status in order to care for others. Interestingly, Paul writes something similar in 2 Corinthians 8:9, when he reminds the Corinthians that although Christ was rich, for the sake of the Corinthians he became poor.⁶ That is, although Christ was rich in having the highest possible position and status, he gave that up to serve others.

Counterargument:

The context suggests not only that Christ had the same status and position as God the Father but that he has the same essence. We can deduce this because Paul follows up the phrase in the form of God by explaining Christ did not count equality with God something to grasp. That is, although Christ was of the essence of God, he did not exploit being of the same essence as God to his advantage.⁷ Instead, although he had the essence of God, he became a servant.

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that mere possibility is not the same as plausibility. That is, just because it is possible to make sense of Philippians 2:6 in a different way than this interpretation suggests, does not mean that we should. For we can just as easily explain the fact that Christ does not consider equality with God something to be grasped, in the sense that he did not consider holding on to the status and position of God as something that was more important than becoming a servant to serve others. In other words, this view has it that Christ did not think to take advantage of the fact that he is God. In fact, Christ does take advantage of the fact that he is God, though he uses that advantage to serve others and not himself. For as God, Christ was able to act as a pleasing sacrifice to the Father. Still, he did this not for his own sake but for the sake of others. That is, while Christ had the most supreme position in the universe, he did not grasp this position of supremacy, but let it go so that he would be rejected, mocked, and ultimately killed, in order to fulfill the will of the Father.

Explanation:

To understand what it means that Christ was in the form of God, we can look to how the term form is used in other passages, including in the Apocrypha.

First, we notice that in Isaiah 44:13 the authors of the Septuagint use μορφή (form) when they describe a carpenter fashioning an idol in the form of a man. The Hebrew word used is תַּבְנִית, which means pattern/form. We also find in 4 Maccabees 15:4 that the author uses μορφή (form) to denote how children look in form to their parents.⁸ Based on these usages, we can deduce that μορφή has to do with something like visual appearance. Of course, we know that God has no visual appearance, because he is immaterial, so likely Paul has in mind not visual appearance but the related notion of status. Thus, that Christ was in the μορφή of God means that he shared God’s honour and status.⁹

Counterargument:

This argument is only partially correct. The notion that form has to do with outward appearance, or shape, is correct.¹⁰ We might also think of the noun in terms of sensible appearance, that is, how something appears to the senses.¹¹ Of course, from this we cannot deduce that Paul has status in mind, for it is not clear what outward appearance has to do with status. Added to this, we know that God is an immaterial spirit, which means that he does not have a sensible appearance that can be grasped by the senses. So although Paul uses form, which is associated with sensible appearance, he cannot mean literal outward appearance. So by form, Paul likely has in mind a slightly more technical notion, as in, not God’s outward appearance but his essence.¹² For shape, or outward appearance of a sensible object, can be denoted with the term μορφή, but God does not have a shape or outward appearance. Still, God is a being, and in fact, fullness of being, so Paul has in mind something more abstract than outward appearance or shape. That is, he likely has in mind essence. So Paul says that Christ was in the form of God, he means Christ shared the very essence of God.

This view is fine as far as it goes, except that the term μορφή normally has to do with appearance, and not status or position.

Explanation:

The first thing to notice is that the term μορφή literally means outward appearance/shape.¹⁶ So Paul is literally saying that Christ was in the appearance of God. Now, we know that God is an immaterial spirit, so he does not have a size or shape.¹⁷ Still, we can deduce from both the Old and New Testaments that he does make his appearance known. That is, God makes his appearance known through his glory.¹⁸ For example, in Exodus 16:10 we read that the glory of the Lord appeared to the Israelites in a cloud. And in Exodus 24:16 we read that the glory of the Lord dwelt on Mount Sinai. Also, in 1 Kings 8:11 we read that the priests could not perform their duties because the glory of the Lord filled the temple. And in the New Testament we learn that God’s glory is made visible through creation. For Paul says in Romans 1:20–23 that God’s invisible qualities are made known through creation, but those who reject God reject his glory for images resembling mortals.¹⁹

So the appearance or μορφή of God is revealed through God’s glory. The New Testament also explains that Christ shares in God’s glory. For example, in John 17:5, Jesus prays that God the Father would glorify him with the glory he had with the Father before the creation of the world. Also, in Hebrews 1:3 we learn that Christ is the radiance of God’s glory. So Christ shares and reveals the glory of God.

Now, if we take it that the glory of God is related to the nature or essence of God, we can see that Paul is saying that before the incarnation, Christ is of the same essence as God. For we know that the μορφή is the appearance of God, which has to do with God’s glory. We also know that Christ shared in this μορφή (form), which is to share in God’s glory. And since to share in God’s glory is to have the nature of God, Paul is saying that Christ was in nature God.²⁰

Counterargument:

The notion that God reveals his appearance by making his glory known is fine as far as it goes. Further, to suggest that Christ’s being in the form of God means that Christ shared the glory of God is also plausible. Still, the notion is not as clear that when Paul in Philippians 2:6 says Christ shared God’s glory, he means that Christ shared God’s nature.

Of course, that Christ does in fact share God’s nature is not in question because Christ is God. Still, we want to know what Paul means in Philippians 2:6 when he says that Christ was in the form of God. And if we agree with this view that Christ’s being in the form of God means that he shared God’s glory, this does not mean that Paul is saying Christ shared in God’s nature. Rather, he could just as likely be saying that Christ was robed in majesty and glory and thus held the highest possible status and position. And although Christ was robed in the glory of God, and held the highest possible status and position, he did not grasp this status and position, but gave it up to serve humanity.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument misses the point because it does not give us any reason to think that Paul does not have essence in mind when he says Christ was in the form of God. Rather, it simply points out that Christ’s sharing God’s glory could be interpreted as Christ’s sharing God’s status. While that may be true, it is also the case that Christ’s sharing God’s glory means that Christ shares the divine essence. Since this counterargument gives us no reason to think that the phrase in the form of God does not mean sharing the divine nature, we have no reason to drop this view.

Explanation:

In order to understand what Paul means when he says that Christ was in the form of God, it is important to understand that God does not have an outward appearance or shape.²¹ Of course, the ordinary meaning of μορφή (form) is something like appearance or shape, but since this usage is ruled out by God’s immateriality, Paul must have something else in mind. Relatedly, when we reach Philippians 2:7, Paul uses the same noun to indicate that Christ took on the μορφή (form) of a servant. Once again, Paul does not mean that Christ took on the outward appearance and shape of a servant, because there is no such thing.²² Rather, his point is that Christ took on the characteristics of a servant. Now, if Christ was in the form of God before the incarnation, and took on the form of a servant, and form does not refer to outward appearance or shape, then what does it refer to? Most likely it refers to the characteristics and qualities that are essential to whatever form Christ takes on. That is, most likely it refers to the essential nature of something. Thus, that Christ was in the form of God means that Christ has the essential nature of God.

Counterargument:

There are two problems with this argument. First, we agree that if the term μορφή (“form) does not refer to the outward appearance or shape of something, then it plausibly refers to the characteristics and qualities to that of which it is the form. Still, that form refers to the characteristics and qualities of something does not imply that it refers to the essence or nature of that thing. For characteristics and qualities could be things like stature, status, position, duties, and so on. The nature of a being is what makes that being what it is. Second, the notion that form implies nature or essence is ruled out by the fact that Paul says Christ was in the form of God, and then took on the form of a servant. Now, if we take it that form refers to essence, Paul is saying that Christ had the essence of God and then emptied himself and took on the essence of a servant. If this is right, then when Christ took on the essence of a servant, he was no longer God. But no one thinks that Christ was not God. Further, it hardly makes sense to say that a being can change its essence, for the essence of a being is what makes that being what it is. For example, if a particular human were to become an alligator, it would no longer be that particular human, because being a particular human entails being essentially human. But again, no one suggests that Christ was a particular being before the incarnation and a different being when he became a human. Rather, we want to hold that essentially, Christ was both God and man when he became human. Now, this issue can be resolved if we take it that while form does refer to characteristics and qualities, it does not refer to a being’s essence. In other words, Christ had the characteristic of holding the highest position, having the greatest status, not be subjected to human emotions and pain. Still, he gave up these characteristics and qualities to take on human characteristics and qualities.

Response to counterargument:

We can avoid the sting of this objection by taking it that Paul has both a literal and metaphorical sense of μορφή (form) in mind. That is, μορφή is just the right term to refer to Christ as being essentially God and metaphorically becoming a servant.²³

Response to response to counterargument:

The problem is that this is not an argument but an assertion. This argument holds that μορφή is just the right term for Paul to refer to Christ as essentially God and metaphorically a servant, but it offers no argument to establish this. Rather, it simply asserts it and asks that we accept the assertion. Why would Paul use the same noun in two drastically different ways within two verses? Of course, if he has in mind that μορφή means something like status, then we can take the meaning of μορφή as literal in both Philippians 2:6 and Philippians 2:7. Christ literally held the highest position, and then literally took on a low position.

Explanation:

When Paul says that Christ was in the form of God, it is important to recognize that μορφή (form) was an important term for the ancient Greek philosophers. In particular, Aristotle used the term to refer to true being.²⁴ Thus, when Paul says that Christ was in the form of God, he means that Christ shared the same being and nature as God. In other words, Paul makes an assertion here about Christ’s divinity.²⁵

Counterargument:

Unfortunately, we know that Aristotle and the other Greek philosophers who used the term μορφή (form) worked several hundred years before Paul wrote his letter to the Philippians. In that time, a large portion of the world was Hellenized by Greek culture, and terms like μορφή took on less technical philosophical meanings.²⁶ Thus, we ought to be careful about taking on the meaning of a term from the classical Greek period rather than the Hellenized period in which Paul worked.

The weakness of this view that at first glance it implies that if Christ was in the form of God and then emptied himself by becoming a servant, he emptied himself of his divinity. Since it is impossible for a being to empty himself of his divinity, this makes it tough to accept this interpretation. Of course, the implication is only at first glance, because as this view argues, one could take μορφή (form) literally in Philippians 2:6 and metaphorically in Philippians 2:7.